The only way to end the war on drugs and the criminal controls therein is to legalize drugs. That simple act puts the power of control and price into the hands of the government and takes it out of the hands of criminals.

It worked on Alcohol in America after the failed prohibition policies... and it would work now for drugs. Let the government control the amount of active ingredient, the production requirements and the price at which it sells. Let the budget get the benefits of increased tax revenue through licencing and excise. Let the tax revenue provide for the voluntary drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs for those with addiction issues - it's cheaper than waging a drug war and incarceration. Let the people choose their poison as once they could.

Drugs have been an cultural inclusion within all societies since pre history times. We are not going to stop seeking them. Allow some social drugs (alcohol) to be deemed acceptable and others not is moral hypocrisy.

True Blue

Posts : 158Join date : 2011-11-18Location : The most liveable city in the World

Although I would baulk at calling prostitution a 'service' (to my mind it's a form of exploitation and should not be countenanced in a civilised society) as there are prostitutes out there, I would agree the practice should be legalised, taxed and appropriate measures in place to ensure prostitutes are safe in the workplace and get proper health care etc.

This is what the Netherlands do and I fully support it. It prevents women walking the streets, ensures they are healthy while they work and they pay into retirement funds, taxes and health insurance.

Non-addictive drugs like cannabis can be legalised safely and controlled like cigarettes and alcohol.

I’ve said previously that legalising drugs might be worth considering, though I’m not 100% sold on the idea. Nothing will stop the desire for any product that people want, as the prohibition of alcohol in the USA in the 1920s showed. Making the production, supply and use of some drugs illegal creates a vacuum into which organised crime moves.

Legalised drugs would cripple organised crime, reduce prison overcrowding and free up police resources to fight non-drug related crimes against people and property. Legal drugs would be safer and would slow the spread of AIDS and other diseases.

Using illegal drugs is very expensive, causing some dependent users to resort to stealing to raise funds; that accounts for 50% of UK property crime - estimated at £2 billion a year.

If cannabis was legal, I don’t think it would be any more of a “gateway drug” to harder substances like cocaine and heroin than tobacco is. I think the gateway is buying one illegal drug from a dealer and then being persuaded to try another.

There is evidently one thing that drug use, alcoholism and pornography have in common, which is that the habitual User requires a bigger and bigger "hit" to obtain satisfaction as time passes. Society must accordingly be prepared for an uncertain outcome if the respective laws were to be relaxed.

"Some drugs should be decriminalised with the least harmful substances regulated and sold in shops, a cross-party group of peers recommends. While the supply of the most dangerous substances should remain banned, users caught with a small quantity of any drug should not be penalised, the inquiry found."

In my opinion, two arguments for legalisation are overwhelming. First, banning drugs simply hands power and finance to criminals - just as prohibition in the US financed the growth of organised crime.

The second, related to the first point, is purely financial - rather than allowing criminals to get rich selling drugs, the trade could provide legal employment, contribute to economic growth and generate massive amounts of revenue from tax and licensing. Money saved on the current need to police against drugs could be used for other purposes - for example cracking down on things that could never be allowed to be legal, such as human trafficking, or even for purposes entirely unrelated to policing.

There are also arguments for legalising to allow quality control, minimise side-effects, risk of overdose and associated medical and legal costs, but even if contamination or strength issues didn't exist, the first two reasons are compelling, in my opinion.

People are going to take drugs whether they're legal or not, so legalisation solves the problems that can actually be solved. It's time to stop being precious about the supposed 'morality' of it and be pragmatic and practical. When we allow legal drugs such as alcohol and cigarettes, any other stance is really untenable.

oftenwrong wrote:All of which misses the point that Administrations need something they can be against.Something that can be trotted out to explain what use they are, if necessary.

Perhaps this is why they still use the rather pointless and generic term "drugs", in order to avoid any honest discussion that might question why our current laws categorise cocaine as the same risk as heroin, just an example of the stupidity applied to policing recreational drug use. What hope is there of educating young people honestly if the law itself is a palpable lie.

Part of the problem with this debate (apart from the hysteria in the press) is that there is a tendency to include all illegal drugs in the debate when they should (obviously) all be considered on their merits, for want of a better phrase. I find the situation around cannabis to be particularly ridiculous. Even the coppers think it's a joke.

One can be slightly drunk, rather interested in dirty pictures or mildly inclined towards the pleasures of the table, but there is only one degree of drug-addiction. Once you're hooked - you're hooked. Apparently.

Many Countries tell their Police that there is no advantage in arresting and prosecuting the holders of miniscule quantities of drugs clearly intended for personal consumption. But they are still maintained to be illegal in any quantity, so who is kidding whom?

Law conducted by nods and winks cannot be satisfactory for any purpose.

oftenwrong wrote:One can be slightly drunk, rather interested in dirty pictures or mildly inclined towards the pleasures of the table, but there is only one degree of drug-addiction. Once you're hooked - you're hooked. Apparently.

I think that's meant as irony,if so I agree, but of course people get addicted to alcohol, and have eating disorders which kill them, there is even supposed to such a thing as sex addiction now, if you believe it's a genuine condition of course.

How many heroine users die from addiction each year, compared to say alcohol or tobacco use?

Or for a better comparison how many of the many millions of people who've ever taken cocaine, or ecstasy for that matter, develop an addiction compared to tobacco users? As has already been suggested by some, I doubt any politician who hopes to remain a politician has the stomach for such questions or any real interest in answering them.

".... how many of the many millions of people who've ever taken cocaine, or ecstasy for that matter, develop an addiction compared to tobacco users? As has already been suggested by some, I doubt any politician who hopes to remain a politician has the stomach for such questions or any real interest in answering them."

British newspapers carried reports that "soft drugs" have been legalised in at least two American States, so politicians must have been involved. Is that information not available in the USA?

How many of our police force are actual soft drug users? when we talk about small amounts obvious for personal use, it gets confiscated, how much of it gets handed in at the station in the officers report? think about it?

My youngest son died from an over-dose of assorted drugs, His life was such hell, I think he was glad to go.We all know that drugs should be controlled, But how? I dont think any one has come up with a sensible answer to that yet.The drug barons are so powerful, and the places where they are grown are so important to the locale, .It would have to be done on a world wide basis, it is no good one or two countries trying to stop it.If any one has a really good idea, lets hear it.

Indeed they are, but criminals would have no customers if the availability of "recreational" drugs was controlled through Doctors' Surgeries and Pharmacies only to individual patients in quantities just large enough for personal use, at specified intervals.

stuart torr wrote:How many of our police force are actual soft drug users? when we talk about small amounts obvious for personal use, it gets confiscated, how much of it gets handed in at the station in the officers report? think about it?

I knew of couple of local police officers in the 80's and one of them joked about the amount of confiscated cocaine that used to disappear from the evidence room. As I said earlier the whole policy needs some objective thinking, and proper research into each recreational drug and it's associated risks, after all we allow the two biggest killers but regulate their use.

14 Years After Decriminalising All Drugs, Here's What Portugal Looks Like

In 2001, the Portuguese government did something that the United States would find entirely alien. After many years of waging a fierce war on drugs, it decided to flip its strategy entirely: It decriminalised them all.

If someone is found in the possession of less than a 10-day supply of anything from marijuana to heroin, he or she is sent to a three-person Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction, typically made up of a lawyer, a doctor and a social worker. The commission recommends treatment or a minor fine; otherwise, the person is sent off without any penalty. A vast majority of the time, there is no penalty.

Fourteen years after decriminalisation, Portugal has not been run into the ground by a nation of drug addicts. In fact, by many measures, it's doing far better than it was before.